000880 Court of Appeal. Moreover, they filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal's decision before the same Court. lt is thus their contention that "all available local remedies were fully exhausted." 33.Citing the judgment of the Court in the matter of Alex Thomas v lJnited Repubtic of Tanzania, the Applicants state that having seized the Court of Appeal, it would not have been reasonable to require them to file a new human rights case at the High Court, which is a lower court than the Court of Appeal. 34.The Court notes that pursuant to Rule 40 (5) of the Rules, an application filed before the Court shall meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies reinforces the primacy of domestic courts in the protection of human rights rzrs-d-vis this Court and, as such, aims at providing States the opportunity to deal with human rights violations occurring in their jurisd iction before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the responsibility of the States for such violations.3 35.1n its established jurisprudence, the Court has consistently held that an Applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies.a Furthermore, in several cases involving the Respondent State, the Court has repeatedly stated that the remedies of constitutional petition and review in the Tanzanian judicial system are extraordinary remedies that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.s 36.|n the instant case, the Court observes from the record that the Applicants filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the High Court which was 3Application No.006/2012. Judgment ot2610512017. African Commission on Human and Peoples'Rights v the Republic of Kenya, SS 93-94. a Alex Thomas v Tanzania Judgment, 64. See also Application No. 006/2013. Judgment of 1810312016 $ (merits), Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Repubtic of Tanzania, g 95. 5 See A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfCLR 465, op. cit. S 65; Mohaied Abubakari v Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 ArcLR 599 op. cit., gg 66-70; Chrtsfophor Jonas v Tanzania (Merits), g 44. 10